Wising up to CatWISE

Using simulation-based inference to measure the cosmic dipole

Oliver Oayda

PhD Candidate

Sydney Institute for Astronomy

The University of Sydney

September 3, 2026

Simulation-based inference resolves systematics.

The Kinematic Dipole

CMB temperature map (Planck satellite)

CMB as a sphere

CMB as a sphere (Earth inside)

We’re moving through the Universe!

Kinematic dipole as a sphere (Earth inside)

Counting Galaxies

\[ \require{color} \definecolor{secondarycolor}{RGB}{235,129,27} \newcommand{\alertmath}[1]{{\color{secondarycolor}{#1}}} N_{i} = \overline{N} (1 + \alertmath{\mathcal{D}} \cos \theta_i ) \]

Simulated isotropic galaxy map (+ dipole)

Simulated isotropic galaxy map (+ dipole)

Special Relativity

Doppler boosting

The Amplitude Excess

The cosmic dipole should be consistent with the CMB dipole.

All is well!

Wait…

Focus: Secrest+21/22, CatWISE2020

The CatWISE Sample

CatWISE quasar map from Secrest+21

CatWISE quasar map, no linear weighting

Correcting for the Bias

Linear fit to density vs. declination (Secrest+21)

Is it good enough to make an ad hoc correction after the fact?

WISE’s Scanning Law

Frames over 1 orbit

Frames over 2 orbits

Frames over 2 orbits 20 days apart

Obeys a scanning law over the survey’s lifetime

Photometric Errors

WISE coverage in W1 band for the Secrest+21 sample

Source photometric error (%) in W1 band for the Secrest+21 sample

CatWISE quasar map, no linear weighting

Eddington Bias

\[ \require{color} \definecolor{tomato}{RGB}{255,88,62} \definecolor{cornflowerblue}{RGB}{89,138,234} {\color{tomato}{\textsf{Sampled flux}}} = {\color{cornflowerblue}{\textsf{True flux}}} + \textsf{Noise} \]

What if the noise varies over the sky? 🤔

This is just something we can simulate!

Simulations

\[m'_{\nu } \to m'_{\nu} + \alertmath{\Delta m'_{\nu}} \]

Simulated quasar map

Actual quasar map

One Thing Left To Do…

\(\text{Posterior} = \dfrac{\text{Prior} \times \alertmath{\text{Likelihood}} }{\text{Evidence}}\)

  • Don't know \(\alertmath{\mathcal{L}}\)? No problem!
  • Take data-generating process \(f_M: \mathbf{\theta} \to \mathbf{x}\).
  • Use a neural network to learn \(\alertmath{\mathcal{L}}\).
  • This is SBI.

Normalising Flows

Composing individual bijections, adapted from Papamakarios et al. (2019).

Results

Bayes Factors

Model \(\ln \mathcal{B}\)
Dipole from Secrest+21 \(2.8\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
Dipole from Dam+23 \(1.9\) \(\pm\) \(0.8\)
Free dipole, extra error, Gaussian \(0.0\) \(\pm\) \(0.0\)
CMB direction, free velocity \(-2.4\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
CMB velocity & direction \(-8.3\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
Free dipole, no extra error \(-113.6\) \(\pm\) \(6.4\)

Bayes factors with respect to the fiducial model.

  • We need an extra error term to explain the data.
  • CMB dipole is ruled out convincingly.

CatSIM Results

Confirms cosmic dipole tension.

We’ve got to be careful of our instruments!

Cracking into RACS?

Oayda et al. in preparation, coming very soon…

  • Describe and account for ecliptic bias \(\checkmark\)
  • Measure cosmic dipole \(\checkmark\)
  • Leverage power of simulations and SBI \(\checkmark\)

Validation